search this blog

Monday, April 3, 2017

Latest on Bell Beaker and Corded Ware


Over at Antiquity:

Abstract: Two recent palaeogenetic studies have identified a movement of Yamnaya peoples from the Eurasian steppe to Central Europe in the third millennium BC. Their findings are reminiscent of Gustaf Kossinna's equation of ethnic identification with archaeological culture. Rather than a single genetic transmission from Yamnaya to the Central European Corded Ware Culture, there is considerable evidence for centuries of connections and interactions across the continent, as far as Iberia. The author concludes that although genetics has much to offer archaeology, there is also much to be learned in the other direction. This article should be read in conjunction with that by Kristiansen et al. (2017), also in this issue.

Volker Heyd, Kossinna's smile, Antiquity, Volume 91, Issue 356, April 2017, pp. 348-359, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.17

Abstract: Recent genetic, isotopic and linguistic research has dramatically changed our understanding of how the Corded Ware Culture in Europe was formed. Here the authors explain it in terms of local adaptations and interactions between migrant Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and indigenous North European Neolithic cultures. The original herding economy of the Yamnaya migrants gradually gave way to new practices of crop cultivation, which led to the adoption of new words for those crops. The result of this hybridisation process was the formation of a new material culture, the Corded Ware Culture, and of a new dialect, Proto-Germanic. Despite a degree of hostility between expanding Corded Ware groups and indigenous Neolithic groups, stable isotope data suggest that exogamy provided a mechanism facilitating their integration. This article should be read in conjunction with that by Heyd (2017, in this issue).

Kristiansen et al., Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe, Antiquity, Volume 91, Issue 356, April 2017, pp. 348-359, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.17

Update 05/04/2017: I've now read both papers a few times. They're basically opinion pieces, which is disappointing, because I was hoping to see some new data. Guess I'll just have to wait for the Bell Beaker behemoth. By the way, Bell Beaker blogger has a post on the Heyd paper and Razib on the Kristiansen paper, see here and here, respectively. I don't have anything to add to what they've already said.

See also...

Bell Beaker behemoth coming real soon

183 comments:

Nirjhar007 said...

Some new Yanaya samples , when they will come?.

Davidski said...

Apparently there will be new Yamnaya samples in the Bell Beaker behemoth.

Nirjhar007 said...

any hope this year?.

Davidski said...

Hope dies last.

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007

Don't you think that if these data had given reason to the Kurganists/Levantinists they would have already published them?

Guy Tipton said...

Hum...

Perhaps the mention of "several authors offered to withdraw from [Haak et al. 2015] paper when "Indo-European" used in title" is the key hint as to the lateness of the BBB. Some of the major authors want to wrap PIE up with a bow and others refuse to go beyond the most parsimonious explanation.

Cheers,
Guy

Davidski said...

Nah, I reckon some of the authors who offered to withdraw from the Haak et al. paper were also the authors of this Epic fail.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/epic-fail.html

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski.
Sure those who share my view are just great...the others are idiots.

Davidski said...

Oh, you're in for a treat tomorrow.

Karl_K said...

@Guy

"Some of the major authors want to wrap PIE up with a bow and others refuse to go beyond the most parsimonious explanation."

How is the most parsimonious explanation different from the main authors' conclusion?

I think rather that some authors are resistant to throwing out decades of incorrect conclusions. Their brains just refuse to believe that they walked so far down perfectly good looking paths that eventually led to cliffs.

Gioiello said...

@ Karl_K

"good looking"

Summertime
when the life is easy
fish are jumpin'
and your mother is good lookin'

Gioiello said...

That above has to be explained with Neapolitan wisdom:

La vita è 'na brioscia
na raputa 'e cosce
na menata 'e pesce
e po' tutto fernesce.

Olympus Mons said...

"Oh, you're in for a treat tomorrow."

Sure... because now we move from "we only care about adna" to perfectly legit anthropology papers as long as they "conclude" my way.


Davidski said...

No, it'll be a two-step process: tomorrow you'll get a lesson in Bell Beaker archeology, and then, in a few weeks, when the behemoth comes out, in Bell Beaker aDNA.

Olympus Mons said...

And just to conclude.

What is "arguable the biggest archeological..."
Shit, it sounds like a promoting event or a marketing stunt. That is how thy start.

Volker Heyd is only interested in arguing is case for the "eastern border Bell beakers". so is main focus for the last 15 years has been the half breads between CWC and BB in Bohemia and Germany. So, is he just reiterating is 2004 views or is he spewing something new?


Olympus Mons said...

A lesson on BB. Hope so.
Lets see how much of the last 3 years findings of BB in Iberia is Volker really addressing in his paper. all those papers and finding in the south meseta near Madrid, findings in Perdigoes and so forth.

I reckon that like so many of your earlier warning this one is also going to fall short, isn't it?

Simon_W said...

My prediction: The Bell Beaker Behemoth will not convince Gioiello, because all ancient finds of R1b-L51 can be interpreted as having migrated from Italy (if autosomal affinity is ignored). Only a thorough sampling of Neolithic and early Bronze Age Italian, especially Tuscan yDNA could do the job.

Karl_K said...

@Simon

Even that wouldn't do. Because a lack of his expected evidence would only mean that the specific refuges were missed, requiring more data.

Gioiello said...

@ Simon_W

Of course I don't pretend that you read all my 10000 or 20000 letters, but I am more open minded than you think. I took into account already from 2007 on Rootsweb that I could be of German, Jewish, Anatolian etc beyond Italian origin, and just yesterday I didn't exclude that my R-Z2110*, having now an Armenian with my private SNP SK2079, could be of Alan or other Eastern origin as my friend and Genalogist Tranchesi thinks and writes from so long.
Of course I wrote that I thought not only to an Italian Refugium of the oldest R-haplogroups from R-L389, R-M335, R-V88, but also R-M269, R-M73 and of course R-L51, and also many R-L23 (I wrote which subclades I esteemed Eastern and which Western European). Thus, if R-L51 and all the Western European subclades won't be found in what I said the BB regions (Iberia, Southern France, Italy and the Italian Islands), I'll consider my theory failed. But all these Levantinist and Kurganist PhD-s have to test Italy beyond the 5 samples of aDNA tested so far.

Simon_W said...

@ Gioiello

Sounds quite sensible. But we have to make clear that all occurrences of the western clades in autosomally steppe admixed individuals, even if found in Italy, can't be treated as evidence for your theory. Because they would perfectly meet the Kurganist expectations. Only those R-L51 found in a pre-Bell Beaker context, without any steppe admixture, or at the very most, in Iberian or other Southern Bell Beakers as long as they were not steppe admixed, could save your theory and would damage the steppe theory of R1b-L51 origins.

Simon_W said...

That's why the R1b found in the heavily steppe admixed German Bell Beakers is by no means evidence for a west European origin of these clades.

Matt said...

Just in at bioRxiv - failure to replicate Failure To Replicate - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/04/03/122218

Goldberg et al seem to argue that Lazaridis and Reich *were* right that ADMIXTURE is systematically wrong (underestimating) at low levels of steppe and wrong at high levels as well (overestimating), but just so happens (wouldn't you know it?) to be *just right* (as Goldilocks would say) at the levels they are looking at.

I'm not sure that two different labs can run ADMIXTURE and regression equations on more or less equivalent sets of simulated ancients, and get different results says anything too much than ADMIXTURE being not a great bad tool for the job.

In a positive step though, they actually do have intriguing ideas for why this ADMIXTURE error happens:

We next tested if specific data features—haploid ancient genotypes, high missing-data rates, and small reference samples—might underlie previously unseen ADMIXTURE biases.

We performed analogous simulations using modern HapMap samples without these features. This analysis traces the bias to the small reference samples available in haploid ancient data (1) (Fig. 2).

Davidski said...

Need to clean up this thread a bit so that it makes sense when the papers come out.

No point speculating what will be in the papers considering they'll be out in a few hours.

Gioiello said...

@ John Smith
"Wouldn't autosomes be like trying to infer the origins of y chromosomes just by comparing strs?"

I used STRs when SNPs weren't so developed as now. I was very likely clever in understanding them so that they are confirmed from the deepest SNPs analyses. Look at my theories of ten years ago and what is coming out from the YFull tree for instance. This is the R-V88 tree with all the Italian haplotypes that I know through the STRs but they are put in the tree where their SNPs would put them if tested (and the same I could do withn R-L389, R-M335, R-M73, R-M269, R-L51-PF7589, and I have always said that R-L11 might come from German peoples and are above all from the Isles now, but also from R-Z2110 till R-CTS9219, even though I admitted that they may have come from East, but not the others):
R-V88 from Italy: definitely demonstrated
R-V88 Z30230/Y7770 * V88/PF6279 * PF6332+59 SNPs15400 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 13400 10200 ybp" class="age"formed 17100 ybp, TMRCA 11700 ybp
R-V88*
⦁ id:YF07201 [ITALY and UK]
R-M18 PF6372 * PF6319 * YP5453+34 SNPs
⦁ id:ERS256975ITA [IT-CA]
⦁ id:ERS256965ITA [IT-CA]
R-Y7777 SK2065/FGC21014/Y7777 * Y7768 * FGC21018/Y8460+10 SNPs10200 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 11000 8200 ybp" class="age"formed 11700 ybp, TMRCA 9600 ybp
R-Y7777*
⦁ id:YF07902 GBR [and ITALY and France]
R-Y8451 FGC20993/Y7786 * FGC21063/Y7784 * FGC21033/Y8445+15 SNPs8200 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 8900 6400 ybp" class="age"formed 9600 ybp, TMRCA 7600 ybp
R-Y8451*
R-V35 V35
⦁ id:ERS256961ITA [IT-CA]
The R-V88 in Iberia (7100 YBP) very likely with the migration from Italy Zilhao spoke about.

batman said...

This debate is actually older than professor Kristiansen himself - trying to determine wether the Singløe-grave-culture and the lowland Cattle-farming of the Danish and NW European lowlands was resulted by immigration or local adaptions. Or both.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0108464X.1991.10590063?src=recsys

Please note that the last decade have proven single-graves (grave-chambers, cists, shaft-tombs) t6o exist already during the Scandianvaian Mesolithic. Motala was one such example.

Today the oldest tumulis ("kurgans") in Denmark have been dated to 6.000 BP. Which makes it obvious that "A movement" of "A Kurgan-bearing-culture" could have gone from the Western Baltics to the east - along the Russian rivers and transport-zones - to reach Dvina-Djepr-Bug and fields of the lower Volga and Don.

Meanwhile it's well known that the oldest Pottery found in Europe, so far, can be traced from east to west - along the very same transport-zones, connecting the 9.000 years old pottery from Volga-Ural to the 8.200 yrs old ceramics from Don and Bug, to the 8.000 yrs old Sperring-ceramics of Carelia and the 8.000 yrs old Ertebolle of the western Baltics.

Davidski said...

Nonsense. Motala has nothing to do with the Single Grave Culture.

I can already tell you that Kristiansen will say Scandinavian Single Grave derives from Yamnaya and arrived in Scandinavia during the Late Neolithic there.

Karl_K said...

So, probably people like Motola started the single grave culture, then moved to Russia for several thousand years before deciding it was time to return back home once they finally invented the wheel.

batman said...

This debate is actually older than professor Kristiansen himself - trying to determine wether the Singløe-grave-culture and the lowland Cattle-farming of the Danish and NW European lowlands was resulted by immigration or local adaptions. Or both.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0108464X.1991.10590063?src=recsys

Please note that the last decade have proven single-graves (grave-chambers, cists, shaft-tombs) t6o exist already during the Scandianvaian Mesolithic. Motala was one such example.

Today the oldest tumulis ("kurgans") in Denmark have been dated to 6.000 BP. Which makes it obvious that "A movement" of "A Kurgan-bearing-culture" could have gone along the Mesolithic waterways - from the Western Baltics to the east; and along the Russian rivers and transport-zones - to reach Dvina-Djepr-Bug and fields of the lower Volga and Don.

https://www.abc.se/~pa/publ/transport.htm

Meanwhile it's well known that the oldest Pottery found in Europe, so far, can be traced from east to west - along the very same transport-zones, connecting the 9.000 years old pottery from Volga-Ural to the 8.200 yrs old ceramics from Don and Bug, to the 8.000 yrs old Sperring-ceramics of Carelia and the 8.000 yrs old Ertebolle of the western Baltics.

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi142.htm

Anyone fam,iliar with the basic symbols used for decorations of the oldest ceramics, as well as wood- and ivory-carvings, will know that the symbols and signs used within the mesolithic/neolithic cultures of Volga-Ladoga, Djepr-Don and Dniester-Bug were all a part of a cultural tradition that was directly rooted in the Paleolithic survivors of ice-age Europe.

1. LP, Mezin: http://donsmaps.com/wolfcamp.html
2. EM, Shigir: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigir_Idol#/media/File:Shigir_idol.jpg

The ceramic beakers of Neolithic Europe - formed as bells or globes, with or without funnels - are ALL using the very same basic symbolism - from Siberia to Iberia:

3. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/55/31/46/5531461100ed21b5cbda9c1552e0bf06.jpg
4. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/266144091_fig2_FIGURE-2-Figure-2-A-Early-Neolithic-stab-and-drag-examples-from-El-Mirador-Burgos-A1

Few sculptures or prictures exist to illustrate the outlooks of the peoples involved in the (principal) re-population of northern Eurasia. Besides the Bactrian portrait-painting used by Davidski (as icon) this snow-shoed bronze-age chart-driver may be a valid exeption:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/1c/8c/0c1c8cb1302fed06788603e7d59520b2.jpg

Davidski said...

Ancient genomes from Scandinavian Single Grave and Battle Axe remains have been available for years now.

They're very similar to Yamnaya and nothing like Motala. What the hell is wrong with you?

batman said...

@ Davidski

1. This is one of the pits from the shaft-graves at Motala. Pretty dificult NOT to see that also this is a single-burial, using a pit-grave-method to create a (primitive) grave-chamber...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hiNqd9IDzaM/THVvbtaIHMI/AAAAAAAABQ4/houE0tmIsLc/s1600/Kanaljorden_skallar+p%C3%A5+botten+av+stensatt+grop+(foto+Fredrik+Hallgren).JPG

2. The hypothesis followed by Kristiansen is nothing but "tentative" - according to Kristian himself. My reference to C. Damms article (above) confirms that.

Please don't overestimate your own ability to discern sense from nonsense.

@ Karl

Your logic is always impeccable - to follow a ping-pong-game. This time around you even made it obvious.

Karl_K said...

@Davudsky

Im sirry. i had a lit ti drank. maybe it wull make mire sense when i siber up.

batman said...

@ Davidski

Your rethoric question is obviously one you need to re-adress.

The last aDNA we've been getting proves that R1a was all over the northern and eastern parts of the Baltic Ocean during the neolithic transition; from Scandianvia to the Baltic states, as well as from Carelia to Siberia.

All along the transport-zone made by Europes largest river-system - connecting the eatern bay of the North Atlantic to the Caspian Sea and the caravans of SE Asia.

The distribution of some fellow cowboys, known as "lowlanders", brought the larger stocks of cattle - as well as their y-dna R1b - along the southern borders of the R1a-farmers and their cold-bloded life-stocks.

The genetic distribution of northern Eurasia - based on a timeline starting at the end of Ice-time - are still to be defined. You should know that bettere than most. Unless there's something wrong with your perception of the topic in question.

Karl_K said...

@batman

I really like your well thought out posts. However, I do not understand the point of your latest one. Could you elaborate?

Davidski said...

batman, 99% of the R1a in the world today is R1a-Z645. You can read more about it in this paper about the invasion of the Baltic region from the steppe during the LNBA. Happy reading.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/baltic-corded-ware-rich-in-r1a-z645.html

The other R1a lineages, that were all over Northern Europe and Siberia before the LNBA, are either extinct or very rare and not important.

Graham Little said...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/issue/AD73D02E0EC4E7DF7A31B1F6258082E1

What you folk are looking for?

Karl_K said...

Thanks Graham.

Karl_K said...

"This new historical interpretation rests on relatively solid ground, and represents a return to a more dramatic past than the prevailing model of cultural and technological transmissions. Some may not like it for its resemblance to an older paradigm of migrations as a primary cause of cultural change, as represented by Gustav Kossinna and Gordon Childe, but we are nowin aposition to unravel the complexities behind the historical processes in much detail, and thus avoid the simplistic models of the past."

batman said...

@ Karl

Summary:
http://www.lda-lsa.de/fileadmin/pdf/Tagungen/MesoBurials-2013_Abstracts.pdf

CCC/PWC <-> CWC
https://www.academia.edu/1624567/Birds_and_burials_at_Ajvide_Gotland_Sweden_and_Zvejnieki_Latvia_about_8000_3900BP

Indepth:
https://helsinki.academia.edu/KristiinaMannermaa

Nirjhar007 said...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/retheorising-mobility-and-the-formation-of-culture-and-language-among-the-corded-ware-culture-in-europe/E35E6057F48118AFAC191BDFBB1EB30E/core-reader

''The original herding economy of the Yamnaya migrants gradually gave way to new practices of crop cultivation, which led to the adoption of new words for those crops. The result of this hybridisation process was the formation of a new material culture, the Corded Ware Culture, and of a new dialect, Proto-Germanic. ''

tew said...

I haven’t been able to explore the whole paper, but the apparent identification in the abstract of the language of CW with “Proto-Germanic” pure and simple at first blush looks absurd, as PG has an obviously very shallow depth. If what they mean is a very distant ancestor (a “Pre-Pre-PG”), they still have to explain 1) why it does not look in any way exceptionally divergent from other Western European IE groups, which would be expected if they had started to diverge from other Western (P)IE dialects so early; 2) what happened to the sister languages of PG and their descendants, since PG itself would have to be a very young descendant (500 BC at most) of the Pre-PG of CW, and, contrary to what would be expected, the area around it does not look very diverse since the first attestation of languages in the region. I would expect the full paper to have many caveats and provide more details that would help solve these questions (maybe what they are really saying is that the ancestor of PGm was mored intimately linked to a CW milieu than other western IE and there is good linguistic evidence for that?). Apologies if this comment based on the abstract sounds premature and the full paper actually addresses all these issues, but I was really baffled because that statement, left unqualified, seemed a bit odd.

Davidski said...

I'm also very skeptical that Corded Ware can be linked to Proto-Germanic, unless Proto-Germanic is used in a very lose, imprecise way.

Karl_K said...

I agree that the pre-proto-Germanic conclusion seems strange, but it could be correct if later immigrations from even further East later replaced the pre-proto-Germanic (Corded Ware) languages of Eastern Europe.

They are supposing that the other Indo-European languages in the South and West of Europe were delivered by related Yamnaya-like groups that led to the Bell Beakers and other similar but lesser defined groups.

Rob said...

Heyd's critique is rather strong, rightly so, of the simple scenarios many continue to favour with regard to the role of Yamnaya.

@ Davidski
I agree, it is very difficult to link proto-Germanic to CWC.

tew said...

Ok, I checked it for more details, and the only caveat is the "perhaps more correctly, PRE-Proto-Germanic" statement in the conclusion. Absolutely no details on chronology or why Northern Europe had so little diversity if IE dialects had started to diverge there so early (or, on a related note, why PGmc itself is not particularly divergent from other, supposedly non-CW, western languages).

Rob said...

@ Tew
More like an extinct dialect "Alteuropanisch" sensu Krahe.

Davidski said...

Heyd's critique would've made more sense before the discovery of the Corded Ware samples basically identical to Yamnaya with no farmer admixture. Now it just looks like he's somewhat confused.

Folker said...

Frankly, I don't understand how they can link CW to even Pre-Proto-Germanic. Not only there is difficulties raised by such an early divergence, but the wide geographical range of the CW Culture is not very coherent with a link to Pre-Proto-Germanic. Too there is so little about this connection in the paper.

Rob said...

If German BB is ~30% "steppe", that could be 10% from GAC and 20% CWC admixture, starting from as early as 3400 BC, with zero Yamnaya

Davidski said...

We don't know if GAC had any steppe admixture. Polish GAC apparently belong to I2, but I suppose they could be similar to Unetice.

But then where would Bell Beakers get their R1b if they had no direct Yamnaya ancestry?

Coldmountains said...

Both papers are very disappointing and it makes no sense to link all of Corded Ware with Proto-Germanic. I am not even sure if Proto-Germanics carried much R1a at all. Most of R1a among modern day Germanics is found in peripheral regions and it looks more like Proto-Germanics replaced R1a with R1b/I1

Nirjhar007 said...

Maybe they are suggesting again that R1a is the Indo-European clade ;) .

Rob said...

@ Karl
Was your question addressed to me ? I don't get it

Proto- Germanic expanded from Iron Age northern Germany

Gioiello said...

@ Davidski

Where have you read in this (ridiculous) paper that Bell Beakers derived from Yamnaya and its R-L51 and subclades?
After, perhaps it will be demonstrated that my R-L23-Z2110* came with Alans linked with Longobards, it is possible, but nothing will be taken away from my analyses.

Karl_K said...

@Rob

I was just suggesting that CWC being pre-proto-Germanic does not make sense with anyone else's ideas, including the idea in your comment. It was not really directed at you.

Antoni Małkowski said...

Jeżeli było więcej takich kolaborantów jak Kossina to rzeczywiście sąsiedzi są spokrewnieni z ceramiką sznurową.

Arza said...

@ Coldmountains

I am not even sure if Proto-Germanics carried much R1a at all.

They still carry. And they are called Balto-Slavs.

This is the answer to the question why Germans are desperately (since XIX century) trying to "prove" that every Slavic word that in an even slightest way resembles Germanic one is a Germanic loanword in a "young" PS.

Eastpole said...
Listen to what top Germanic scholar Guus Kroonen is saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xQNVexhSJQ&feature=youtu.be&t=207

“Slavs were barbarians to Germanic people…You don’t borrow from barbarians, that’s the rule.”


Guus Kroonen is one of the co-authors of this paper.

They already know that there was no other migration from the steppes (eventually excluding Hittite). Only secondary ones from CWC area. That's why they are trying to render CWC as Germanic as possible. They just can't stand a thought that they've learned a language from the Slavs.

epoch2013 said...

To give the impression what Volker Haidt's article means a link to an essay by an archaeologist who wants to write on Celtic ethnicity: Constanze Maria Witt.

A major dilemma in writing an argument such as mine, in which I advocate a reinterpretation of stylistic change in "Celtic" art as essentially indigenous and independent of Mediterranean diffusionism, lies in the danger that I, a German, might be misconstrued as advocating a return to the racist, ethnocentric archaeology of Gustav Kossinna and other proponents of his Kulturkreis model.

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/Barbarians/Essays/ethnic_main.html

That, mind you Davidski, is likely one of the reason authors wanted to withdraw from Haak 2015 when the word Indo-European migration was used.

epoch2013 said...

@Arza

It's a mockery. Re-listen to see the context. This starts with a question: "What would they suggest on the loanwords from the Celts into Germanic?" To that someone jokes: The cultural superiority of the Celts. Then he takes the joke a tad further.

Gioiello said...

@ Davidski

Much Ado About Nothing
For whom the bell beaker tolls?

p.s. Thanks to Nirjhar007 for the paper.

jv said...

Regarding Pre-Proto-Germanic & Proto-Germanic: Perhaps descendants of Neolithic Farmers were using their words while adopting a new I.E. language spoken by the migrant newcomers.(Neolithic mama's + Steppe dads)http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf

jv said...

Davidski
GAC mtDNA K2a Poland(.....my Paternal Grandma Niehaus is mtDNA K2a)

Arza said...

@ epoch2013

Apparently this is a very old Germanic "joke":

Pieniądz (money).
https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Strona:PL_Aleksander_Br%C3%BCckner-S%C5%82ownik_etymologiczny_j%C4%99zyka_polskiego_427.jpeg

"Wyższości kultury niemieckiej dowodzi, że wszelkie nazwy monet, denarów itd., Słowianie od Niemców przejęli,"

GTranslate:

"The superiority of German culture proves that all the names of coins, denarii, etc., Slavs from the Germans took over,"

"The superiority of German culture is proven by the fact that all the names of coins, denarii, etc., Slavs took from the Germans"

jv said...

@ Graham Little
Thanks for the link. I'm new to this research but I really enjoy it.

jv said...

As per Dr David Anthony(The Horse The Wheel & Language), the Usatovo Culture may have formed the root for Pre-Germanic dialects.

Antoni Małkowski said...

W zbirze FTDNA (Y-DNA – Zestawienia ) mam gościa z gatunku tych co to nie sieją nie orzą a plony zbierają
Twierdz że jest Gotem z Portugalii (R1b-CT9219). Z niego taki potomek Gotów jak ze sąsiadów potomkowie kultury Yamna.
Przyznaje coraz miej z tego wszystkiego rozumiem.

capra internetensis said...

Kristiansen etal paper would definitely have benefited from some clarity on the linguistic front. I think that they are only talking about the Corded Ware-Funnel Beaker overlap area in northern Germany/southern Scandinavia for the ancestor of Germanic, but it's hard to tell. I would expect a better job considering one of the authors is a historical linguist.

Overall though it is a nice review of recent results and fits neatly with the agricultural substrate hypothesis.

I don't see that we can rule out a Bell Beaker or later Bronze Age origin either but a CW origin is at least plausible.

Arza said...

@ Capra

I think that they are only talking about the Corded Ware-Funnel Beaker overlap area in northern Germany/southern Scandinavia for the ancestor of Germanic

This will be their line of defence.

But clarifying this will require an answer how the language of the rest of the CWC looked like and an answer to a question how this "Proto-Germanic" or "Pre-proto-Germanic" is related to them. And this is something that they want to avoid. At all costs.

This paper is probably aimed at setting the "right" narration before Behemoth comes out. Wanna bet that BB developed in situ in Central Europe and CWC folks were in the mix?

epoch2013 said...

@capra

Thisone, you mean?

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf

batman said...

Davidski,

"99% of the R1a in the world today is R1a-Z645. (...) The other R1a lineages, that were all over Northern Europe and Siberia before the LNBA, are either extinct or very rare and not important."

Unless you take an interest in the history - and need to explain the cultural and histoical origin of the dynasties based on y-dna R1a and R1b.

The spreading-patterns and the probable area of R1a's origin may still take you back to the bifurication area of R1a1a (L-664) and R1a1b (Z-283) within a central North European location. Just as ith the earlier bifurication, between R1a and R1b.

The split from M-269 into R1a1a1a (L-664) and R1a1a1b (Z-645) seem to have been very close to present-day Germany. Moreover, as Z-645 continues to evolve into further sub-clades we find branches spreading both west, east, south and north from the shores between Elben and Vistula.

Qas major branches we find the downstream of Z-282 in western Europe and Z-93 in eastern Europe and western Asia.

http://pichoster.net/images/2015/02/27/R1a%20clades%20014.jpg

So – what subclade of R1a1a1b2 (Z-93) did actually come out of the Caspian steppes in hordes, to invade, conquer and repopulate a large part of Europe, during the otherwise peaceful Bronze Age?

Where does the ancient R1a recently published from Sweden and the Baltic fit with that scenario? Are they downstream Z-282 or ditto Z-93?

Arza said...

Archaeological part (CWC) is actually quite good.
=========
Here is a hint what will BBB show:
"Bell Beaker groups had by now also emerged on the scene, introducing metallurgy, and they further complicated the mix of cultures and people."

There are two key-words here - emerged and metallurgy. The first one suggest a rather local development. The second a connection to an originally non-IE way of life, as in this sentence:

"Extensive exchange systems linked different groups together and secured access to products outside the pastoral economy, such as metal."

Now we can connect this with the old-new slide about mobility, which also showed that CE BB were less mobile than CWC (you can't be more mobile than
shepherds if you're "introducing metallurgy", because metal deposits don't have legs like cows; you can eventually jump from one ore mine to another).
=========
Another interesting thing is about pottery:

"Corded Ware pottery appeared later in Northern Europe, and we may suggest that this did not happen until women with ceramic skills married into this culture and started to copy wooden, leather and woven containers in clay."

In other words imprinted corded pattern on the pottery is like a Nokia 3310 printed on an iPhone case - new technology, old-school design.

EastPole said...

My opinion about Kristiansen’s paper:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10197-Re-theorising-the-Corded-Ware-Culture-(Kristiansen-et-al-2017)&p=224354&viewfull=1#post224354

Arza said...


Figure 2. is a masterpiece of manipulation. On the Y axis there is a time, but the appearance of the whole chart suggests that it shows the percentage of IE, Neo and HG layers.

According to this chart Germanics were the first IE (TIME) and have most IE vocabulary (LAYERS).
At the same time it suggests that Balto-Slavic have the least IE vocabulary and is simply last.
Just a slight differences... but enough for a brain to subliminally catch this:

https://s22.postimg.org/o4xuszv41/kroonen.png

"introduction of Proto-Germanic by the intruding Yamnaya groups"

So not only Corded Ware was Germanic. Yamnaya was also Germanic.

@ Capra

Do you still think that they are talking in fact about the Southern Scandinavia? Kristiansen maybe, but not Kroonen.

andrew said...

Both Antiquity papers are pretty unimpressive at the level of the abstract, with the CWC paper on its face making a pretty implausible assertion about Germanic languages, and since they are closed access there is no way to redeem them.

Ariel said...

This pre proto-Germanic thing is lunacy, the whole paper looks like some third reich anti-slavic propaganda.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski...
Yes, I definitely "learned" a lot.

Pathetic.

Olympus Mons said...

One of the references of the paper from Volker Heyd is "Absolute chronology of the Beaker phenomenon north of the Tagus estuary" From Cardoso (2014).


The complexity of the Beaker phenomenon in the
Tagus estuary does not fit well with the model of three successive groups (International, Palmela and Incised Groups). The above seems to result from the nature of the settlements rather than from its chronology, as all
three groups are present during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. Therefore while artefacts of the International Group predominate in the fortified sites, the Incised
Group appears almost exclusively in open sites. The Palmela Group seems of minor importance, at least in the north region of the Tagus River estuary. The remarkable antiquity of Beaker pottery found in the FM hut at Leceia
(which dates from the 2nd quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, re-confirmed by AMS dating) has parallels both in the North and South of Portugal, as well as in Spain
. Thus
we conclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most important regions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion of Beaker “phenomenon”), the Beaker social formation with its own distinct cultural
characteristics, coexisted with local Chalcolithic cultures, although never merged with them.


So, the madman interprets the last sentence as...Yeah, not local, hence Yamnaya. So Davidski not really different from what you do.

Lovely world this of the post-modernism and post facts.

Rob said...

@ OM

The Beaker vessel originated in Estremedura, but the full Beaker package is rare in Iberia, appears mostly late and in fee individuals.
Pottery can be copied and shared easily.
Certainly your idea of a North African / near eastern exodus is wrong.

Rob said...

@ OM

The Beaker vessel originated in Estremedura, but the full Beaker package is rare in Iberia, appears mostly late and in few individuals.
Pottery can be copied and shared easily.
Certainly your idea of a North African / near eastern exodus is wrong.

Olympus Mons said...

....And most important! Lets all not pretend that we do not know what Volker Heyd is actually doing and saying.
you all are really intelligent people so stop pretending you do not see the obvious.

"...across the continent, as far as Iberia" --- Screw that. What Heyd is saying is yes I know that those Iberia Bell beakers where R1b-M269, but its all fine because they where also Yamnaya that came with the milleu that created the From Yamnaya to CWC that extended all the way to Iberia.

See, so finding M269 in Iberia changes nothing. That is the "job", as we see in political spins, that Heyd is doing. you can all keep injecting Yamanya up your veins. :) - Like I said. Pathetic!

Rob said...

@ Davidski

"We don't know if GAC had any steppe admixture. Polish GAC apparently belong to I2, but I suppose they could be similar to Unetice.

But then where would Bell Beakers get their R1b if they had no direct Yamnaya ancestry?"

The Schonfield culture is often seen as a rump survivor of GAC.
On the other hand the Unetice I2's could be from Hungary (& presumably Slovakia), which was full of I2a in the Copper and Bronze Ages, and seems to be the source of Unetice metalwork.

Olympus Mons said...

@rob
Read this...

http://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/bell-beakers-is-coming-5601

Arza said...

@ EastPole

I will only argue that there was no differentiation into separate branches on the steppe. Too homogenizing environment. Same we can say about the mass migration from the steppes. They didn't have a map, there was no "ok, we are the Germans and here is Scan...hey Hans komm hier, you're not going to Greece!".

So this Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic etc. was in fact a single language at this time (and if there were some dialects it all mixed up just like in Western Poland after the WWII) and the differences between IE branches arose in situ in different parts of Europe due to mixing with different local populations in different proportions. There were also secondary migrations from around and inside the CWC area, so already mixed IE have mixed again.

Basically it was like in the wave model.

PS
Now I see that Jean M wrote a similar thing.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski.
I think it was you that said Heyd knows the results of the
Bell Beaker behemoth, right?

And was him that told Jean Manco, that he "still" believes that Bell beakers came with Yamnaya.

So, now he makes a paper "ascertaining" that the Yamnaya (ish) went all the way west as Iberia.

So, its clear what the Bell Beaker behemoth is going to say about Iberians Bell beakers and R1b M269, right?

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
... My thesis about the North Africa route? - Yeah? And I think that what krause was doing with that paper of the Ancient Egyptians middle eastern(ish) and lack of SSA is setting up the ground to show the results of stuff like Fayum, Merimde and el-Omari. and those are gonna be south Caucasus as hell - Wanna bet?

capra internetensis said...

@andrew

Unless Kroonen has gone off his head, they do not intend Proto-Germanic; it seems to be just bad editing, where "dialect ancestral to Germanic" was meant. In the paper kindly linked above by epoch Kroonen puts the breakup of Proto-Germanic after "sometime in the middle of the 1st millennium BC".

@Arza

I think you have spent too much time with anthroforum trolls, if you are seriously looking for slights against Slavs hidden in random zigzags on graphs! From this paper I can't even guess whether or not they put the ancestor of Balto-Slavic in Corded Ware, or if they have any opinion on the subject at all.

EastPole said...

@Arza
So you think that there was no differentiation between PIE groups on the steppe and R1a and R1b were speaking the same language?
So why didn’t they mix?

Rob said...

@OM

I am a holy and pious man. I don;t bet or drink or engage with women.

tew said...

The Pre/Proto-Germanic statement can’t be “just” an editing slip (which btw would be a major compromising slip if indeed a slip). Even the “ancestral to Germanic or with more affinity to Germanic” interpretation can’t explain the chronology and the problem of the lack of diversification in the region, and in fact creates way more problems than it solves, not to mention that it purports to overthrow a solid consensus on the origins of PGmc with no new data at all.

The review of other studies does look like a good summary, but the conclusions they derive from it are incredibly forced. The association with Germanic sounds like such a random, arbitrary stipulation unwarranted by the references they present that one could be led to think they really “want” this to be true even in the face of contrary facts, but it is really hard to comprehend why.

I would prefer to believe these problems are just confusion generated by poor redaction on their part due to time constraints or other issues, but as others have said in this thread, these are people who really should know better, so it is all very disappointing, even disconcerting.

tew said...

Just to clarify, I meant that the exclusive or special association with Germanic is the problem. If instead CWC is seen as a “stepping stone” stage for other IE branches in the region, a distant ancestor of PGmc included among them, that would not be a problem, and in fact has been suggested many times before. But that is not at all what they are claiming in the article

Rob said...

@ Tew
You're making too much of a small issue
It's an archaeology paper discussing how aDNA has transformed our acceptance of migration

tew said...

@Rob
No issues there. But in that case, it was unnecessary to venture a bold new linguistic theory that has no new data to back it up, indeed nothing at all to back it up. Why even attempt it only to botch it, if that was not their focus? That is not a “small” issue, at least not for linguists with an interest in this area. But yes, this doesn’t necessarily has any consequences for the merits of the rest of the paper.

Rob said...

No I agree with you on that, as per my original comment

Nirjhar007 said...

They're basically opinion pieces, which is disappointing,

hehehehe and you said they are going to be the biggest papers of 2017 :D .

Personally I find Kossinna's smile better than the other , which was rather boring .

Arza said...

@ Capra

Nah, I spent too much time with Sanskrit, Hittite, Tokharian, Ancient Greek, Latin and "PIE" dictionaries.

Random zigzags one can put in some school project, but there should be no place for this kind of ambiguity (as with Y axis) in a scientific paper.

@ EastPole

I have no problem with the idea that R1a and Western European R1b folks lived together on the steppes and spoke different IE languages. In fact it would be a nice and clean explanation of the centum-satem split and at the beginning I was convinced that this was the case.

But the problem is that Slavic and Baltic are not satem nor centum languages and this split simply doesn't make any sense. Additionally one can find some very fresh-looking links between European languages. My bet for now is that the Western R1b was native to CE and it started to expand when CWC rolled in. But it's possible that they have landed on the outskirts of CWC just by chance and expanded from there and that's why we observe current distribution and correlation with "centum" languages (outskirts = heavier mixing with HG and Neo = sound shifts).

Going back to links...

If "buk" is a Germanic loanword in a young Proto-Slavic because it has a "k" instead of "g", then what we should say about this word:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kringla

And this is not just some meaningless pretzel-word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gn%C3%A1_and_H%C3%B3fvarpnir
"In Norse mythology, Gná is a goddess who runs"

Who would have thought? Lol!*

* - sorry, couldn't resist.


krągła - round, gna - she runs
And this is just a tip of an iceberg.

Zimri said...

The big one might be Kroonen / Iversen, "Talking Neolithic: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on how Indo-European was Implemented in Southern Scandinavia", to be published in American Journal of Archaeology... real soon now.

Al Bundy said...

In the big picture both papers support a steppe homeland but have been drinking too much hefeweizen and have a wonky view of ProtoGermanic? The steppe theory works for most of Europe anyways we'll see what the behemoth says.

EastPole said...

@Arza,
your observations of Slavic words in Germanic religion are very interesting. It is very important to look at the religion.

Kristiansen’s paper pointed to the fact that Neolithic languages in Europe were crucial for the formation of modern European languages.

Proto-Slavic didn’t come from the steppe. It was a mixed language of steppe people and Neolithic farmers. Proto-Slavic religion was not a steppe religion. It was a mixed religion of steppe people and Neolithic farmers.

What is important to notice is that Vedic Sanskrit was not a steppe language too. It was a mixed language of steppe people and Neolithic farmers. Vedic religion was not a steppe religion. It was a mixed religion of steppe people and Neolithic farmers. And it shows many similarities to Slavic.
How did the linguistic and religious influences of Neolithic farmers from Europe (the same farmers who influenced Slavic) got to India?

Arza, sometime in the future we have to get together and discuss it. I have found very interesting things which I think are the solution of this puzzle. It is a combination of genetics of plants and animals and linguistics. Let’s not waste time on Kroonen, he doesn’t have a clue.

Al Bundy said...

@eastPole Maybe the role of the farmers has been downplayed because farmers are boring compared to the steppe warriors.From what I understand farmer ancestry,even in Northern Europe where the Yamnaya had their biggest impact, is still significant.

Davidski said...

Farmers and also metallurgists from the south appear to have provided the non-Indo-European substrata in Indo-European languages.

That's why the focus in Proto-Indo-European studies is on the steppe and the horse worshiping (not necessarily riding) people who lived there during the Eneolithic.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans appropriated farming, metallurgy, probably the wheel, and maybe even horse domestication from non-Indo-Europeans. But the focus on the horse is what really stands out in early Indo-European language and culture.

Al Bundy said...

@Davidski If those things were appropriated and or came to the steppe from the south somewhere could the language have been appropriated too? It doesn't look like it was but that kind of reasoning I've seen here and other places.Everything came from the south because they were more civilized at the time, maybe in some areas.But as you say most of the R1a and b expanded from the steppe.

Al Bundy said...

Yea I missed the non IE substrata ,the farming and metallurgy terms makes sense.

Al Bundy said...

The early out of Anatolia model , what Renfrew originally proposed,is considered way too early and he's modified that somewhat.So now you have the steppe groups doing all the work ,if you consider having sex work, and Greek and Anatolian not going through the steppe.The theories keep changing.

EastPole said...

David
“the focus in Proto-Indo-European studies is on the steppe and the horse worshiping”

How do you know PIE were horse worshiping.
Vedic Aryans, Hellens , Slavs were not horse worshiping. They were fire worshipers offering horses and cows to the gods with the help of fire, who was a messenger.
Comparing fire to horse or bull was a poetic metaphor, the same in all three cultures. In addition to common poetic metaphors they also shared the same poetic meter.
Agni/Ogni/Ogień was like a horse, energetic, fast, powerful. Koń, goń, ogoń, ogień, ognić etc...

Olympus Mons said...

@Nirjhar007

"...biggest papers 2017"... and they will be.

Heyt paper is laying the ground to, whatever is found in Iberia Bell beakers, and the big adna papers to come .... its still CWC, hence Yamnaya, hence steppe, steppe, steppe.

What a pathetic bunch...

Davidski said...

@Al

If those things were appropriated and or came to the steppe from the south somewhere could the language have been appropriated too?

Maybe, but was the steppe a complete vacuum culturally and linguistically, so that the indigenous people there had to appropriate everything from the south without even leaving a trace of their own culture and language?

@East Pole

Come on, seriously...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1vieniai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_and_Pollux

Nirjhar007 said...

I am very eagerly waiting to read the Linguistic works of Arza .

I recently read this research , I find it impressive , they speak an important point :

''The large majority of special correspondences between Balto-Slavic and Indo Iranian are archaisms, not innovations. This is important because it implies that a comparison of Balto-Slavic with Indo-Iranian leads to a reconstruction of an early stage of Indo-European.''

Nirjhar007 said...

http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2284

Nirjhar007 said...

Heyt paper is laying the ground to, whatever is found in Iberia Bell beakers, and the big adna papers to come .... its still CWC, hence Yamnaya, hence steppe, steppe, steppe.

I sense with relatively large amount of coverage from Iberia , it will be the end of BBC debate .

We recently saw some samples from Iberia , but they were not very kind to your suggestions OM.

Davidski said...

I'm pretty sure Arza is not Frederik Kortlandt if that's what you're implying.

Interesting paper though.

Nirjhar007 said...

wtf are you talking about ? lol . :D

Karl_K said...

@Al

"If those things were appropriated and or came to the steppe from the south somewhere could the language have been appropriated too?"

Of course. But it makes no difference where the people who spoke proto-IE got the language. It changes nothing. It could have come from Martians, or from some people 5000 km south who left no other linguistic legacy. It could be very interesting, but it changes nothing in the debate about proto-IE, because these people left no other linguistic legacy.

Olympus Mons said...

Nirjhar.
Believe me. The samples we recently saw had absolutely nothing to do with BB.

People arriving to iberia on the 2nd half 4th milenia were not a single stock. Bell beakers were a stock on left side of guadiana river, that moved past the tagus river were it coalesced as bell beakers. So no no samples yet.

Olympus Mons said...

.and we do not know what north africa hg was and what the stock fleeing Sahara birth was. Could even be I2a. Who knows. The Phoenician boy was U2b, was he not?

Alberto said...

@OM

But did you read Heyd's article? It's actually a strong critique of the papers about eh massive migrations from the steppe that brought IE language/culture to Europe. Not that he doubts the genetic evidence (which is clear enough), but the simplistic approach of genes=culture=language. He mentions the long standing interactions and changes happening all around Europe at a similar time. As an example he refers to the high status burial at Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain) highly reminiscent of the Yamnaya/CWC burials ("large barrow with burial chamber; the individual male burial, crouched on his right-side, oriented east–west; the flint dagger, and staining with red cinnabar pigment"), with a similar date of 2875–2700 cal BC. And I don't think he's saying that the guy came from the steppe. (As a side note, they attempted to extract DNA from that exact guy some time ago, but probably with old school tools that only yielded mtDNA results: H1. Hopefully we'll see it in all its glory at some point).

In any case, we did get recently some DNA from around 2300 BC from a site with Bell Beaker pottery in northern Spain. And it was just like other Chalcolithic samples. I don't know why you would consider that an irrelevant sample for your hypothesis.

Alberto said...

In general I guess it was a bit disappointing that Volker Heyd didn't write anything about Bell Beaker origins and expansion, as we expected (especially since he knows the DNA results from the upcoming paper).

In any case, what I'd like to see archaeologically is a better definition of Bell Beaker culture. The problem I see with its current definition is that if you place under the same culture people who have completely different burial rites (collective vs. individual, for example) or people who use flint daggers with other people who use advanced metallurgy (intentional alloying of copper, usually with Arsenic), then it's no wonder that it's hard to find the origin.

Pottery, as Rob said above, is a basic technology that can be copied/transmitted without any problem. But making arsenic-copper alloys isn't. One can't just assume that this technology suddenly appeared out of thin air in those populations who used flint weapons before (the article about CWC says that metallurgy "emerged", as if that was some kind of thing that happened magically). Especially when it's a quite specific technology, with specific forms, etc.. that can be traced in space and time.

Rob said...

@ Alberto

"I don't know why you would consider that an irrelevant sample for your hypothesis"

Perhaps because it contradicts it ?

Davidski said...

@Alberto

Heyd doesn't know the little things, like the Z645 in Corded Ware, in Balto-Slavs and in Indians, and he probably never will, because he'll never think that it's relevant.

Alberto said...

@Davidski

But I don't think he's having any strong opinion about the genetic side of those studies. On the contrary, he accepts it as valid and definitely useful. But he argues (quite correctly, IMO) that it's geneticists the ones who don't know the little things that might have happened for centuries before any gene flow ever took place.

So unless one wants to write strictly a "Genetic history of Europe" (or "West Eurasia"), one cannot ignore the other fields and write a "Cultural and linguistic history of Europe" (or "West Eurasia") by just looking at the genetic evidence.

capra internetensis said...

@Arza

I'll need to read the new Kroonen & Iversen paper to find out how much the graph means. Taken literally it would imply that Balto-Slavic was located in between Germanic and Italic, which would be unexpected. Also that Germanic came into contact with the Neolithic substrate earlier, which may well be what they have in mind.

That wouldn't mean that they were earlier IE with more IE layers though - it would if anything mean they had more non-IE material. I can't see why you are interpreting this as some expression of Germanic superiority.

Al Bundy said...

@Karl I agree it's just interesting.The steppe groups spread the language,whether it fell from Mars or emerged out of Kim Kardashian's ass.The only issue left I think is,to your point about leaving a linguistic legacy,how IE got to Greece and Anatolia but it looks like it ultimately came from the steppe.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Proto-German stuff,

David posted a video of a lecture on Corded Ware by Kristian Kristiansen a few months ago. He links Corded Ware to proto-Germanic. Maybe he doesn't think they spoke proto-Germanic but instead an ancestor of proto-Germanic.

It isn't crazy to think proto-Germanic derives from Corded Ware, the most probable first IEs in Northern Europe. So I don't understand why you guys are bashing it so much.

Al Bundy said...

@Davidski I agree as I said if the nonsteppe theories of PIE keep changing when new data comes in it looks like they're grasping at straws.

Rob said...

@ Sam

"So I don't understand why you guys are bashing it so much"

It can be confusing to follow, because some arguements above appear to be bashing it for personal reasons, at least in part, but others out of solid evidence and good reasoning. You should be able to tell by now which comments those are.
But at a very basic level, R1a doesn't seem to be a feature of Germanic languages, but rather a substrate in some Germanic groups, and that being different subclades of R1a in different Germanic groups, such as L664 in some Scandinavians, Z284 in others, and 'Balto-Slavic" clades in continental Germans.

tew said...

@Samuel,
It IS "crazy", on the basis of the available linguistic data at least, to suggest that ONLY Germanic came from ALL of CWC, which is the most literal interpretation of the conclusions in this particular paper. Some reasons for that have already been stated above. If that is not what they actually believe, the text should have made it clear.

batman said...

@ Karl

"I think rather that some authors are resistant to throwing out decades of incorrect conclusions. Their brains just refuse to believe that they walked so far down perfectly good looking paths that eventually led to cliffs."

Eventhough they may pass crossing paths, leading elswhere, they still seem obliged not to 'diverge', but stay 'on track' to keep an academic consensus - or two. Besides their salary, position and self-esteem...

Admitting doubt and self-critique have long been a non-grata within power-politics. Unfortunately such social gameing have found its way into modern academia, too - along with a poltically driven funding, wether private of public.

Today we find academians caught by all kinds of consensus - crippling their abilities to reflect over two thoughts, views or angles at the same time. Thus we've been getting "authorities" that have excelled in their ability to "stand firm" and never be confused by facts...

One example is Gimbutas old but still unproven hypothesis about an alledged start of the tumuli-tradition in her own backyard, i.e. the Pontic Steppe. It's still not a matter of facts, but of belief - since numerous tumuli-graves ("kurgans") PRE-dating the tumulis north of Asov have been found elswhere.

Conflating this thesis with a "horse-culture" on the Pontic-Caspian steppes may then be seen as a 'natural' step ahead. Unfortunately - as Mallory have told Anthony more than twice - it may be on track towards yet another cliff, overlooking the Black Sea.

Looking for the earliest horse-graves - or the areas with the highest number of horse-graves - will definitly not take you down that path. Thus Anthony keeps repeating that "The Kurgan Culture" is a definition so wide it can include any culture with pottery and a burial mound or ochre-graves could be included.

---

Before Maja moved to California and got funded by the Big Bucks her "Kurgan-hypothesis" was placed beside her connocting hypothesis of a "matriarchic society" - which obviously pleased her contemporary politicians promoting the womens lib movement.

Even though we've had linguists and anthropolists adopting her views we're still awaiting proves of both these hypos.

Regarding her pre-kurgan "matriarchy" it seems obvious that her ideas are in direct conflict with the patrilineal patterns shown by modern genetics. Just as a variety of flexed ochre-graves, tumulis and gravefields have been found across Eurasia, which actually predate both Sredny Stog and Yamna with a millennia or two.

As the revelation of Yamna as dominantly R1b and the known CWC-sites as dominantly R1a it becomes a mystery that some still repeat the old hypo - requiring Yamna to be ancestral to the CWC. Unless we adress the socio-political side of the matter - where people learn to insist on keeping the old, outlined maps clean and not be confused by the terrain.

Simon_W said...

The language of the earliest Corded Ware was probably still quite close to PIE. It's ridiculous to speak of Celtic, Germanic or Balto-Slavic at this time depth.

Simon_W said...

That's the beauty of PIE, it transcends such later categories in which nationalist chauvinists tend to think.

Al Bundy said...

Baltic languages are considered the most archaic modern IE languages,probably in the ballpark of early Corded Ware IE.

batman said...

Simon W

"The language of the earliest Corded Ware was probably still quite close to PIE."

That's a pretty bold statement, actually. What evidence do you actually build on?

"It's ridiculous to speak of Celtic, Germanic or Balto-Slavic at this time depth."

Yet another and even bolder simplification. Do you have any evidence to support it?

Simon_W said...

@ Al Bundy
Latvian and Lithuanian may have some archaic features, but they also have innovations. And in other IE languages we find other archaisms. And don't forget, the early Corded Ware is dated to 4900 years before present. I find it hard to believe that a language could stay the same aover this vast span of time. Moreover there is really no evidence that Baltic was once spoken as far west as Switzerland and Holland.

@ batman

I think it's more or less consensus now that PIE was spoken in the Chalcolithic. That's what the reconstructed vocabulary suggests. And the calibrated statistical analysis of the different IE vocabularies carried out by Chang et al. 2015 suggests that all IE languages save Anatolian and Tocharian have a coalescence time of about 5300 BP.

Simon_W said...

To me that's one of the key paragraphs of the Kristiansen paper:

"The institutions of burial ritual and of households or settlements should therefore form the core in comparative analyses of mobility and migrations because they do not change easily (see too Kristiansen 1989; Burmeister 2000; Prien 2005). Lack of a theoretical understanding of social institutions, and their differing role in organising material culture, goes a long way to explaining the many failed attempts to come to terms with migrations in the archaeological record, as well as with various forms of ethnicity (e.g. Andresen 2004; Brather 2004). Portable material culture can be used selectively to identify mobility, depending on its social and personal role. Thus, fibulae and pins are carried as part of dress, and may be helpful in defining the movements of individuals. Most previous research on the Corded Ware Culture has used portable material culture, especially pottery, as a diagnostic feature, and therefore stressed differences between Corded Ware and Yamnaya steppe cultures while overlooking more basic similarities. We therefore need to re-analyse the (possible) social processes from initial Yamnaya migration to settling down and forming a new material culture: Corded Ware (Furholt 2014)."

It's really a funny irony of archaeological research that long ago, in the earlier parts of the 20th century, it was the predominant opinion that the Corded Ware people were migrants from the east. Then, as the knowledge grew and people knew more and more about the details, archaeologists grew more and more sceptical about this idea, until it was consensus that the Corded Ware clearly had a local origin and that the migrationist ideas of the past were just laughable, over-simplistic and severely outdated crap. And now it turned out that the old ideas were in fact closer to the truth than the elaborated analyses of more recent times. Kristiansen explains well why this had happened: The archaeologists had focused on the wrong details, arguing against migration with evidence that doesn't reliably track migrations while neglecting evidence that may do this better.

Rob said...

@ Karl
Just accept that haplogroup G and H expanded from Mesolithic North Europe, and PIE expanded from the island of Atlantis during the ice age ok ?

Simon_W said...


As for the asociation between Corded Ware and Proto-Germanic insinuated by Kristiansen, the most explicit formulation is perhaps this one:

„The original herding economy of the Yamnaya migrants gradually gave way to new agrarian practices of crop cultivation, which led to the adaptation of new words. The result of this hybridisation process was the formation of a new material culture, the Corded Ware Culture, and of a new dialect, Proto-Germanic (or perhaps more correctly, Pre-Proto-Germanic).“

Indeed, there he seems to link the Corded Ware directly with Proto-Germanic. I wouldn't pay too much attention to this detail though. The paper has more to offer than this. It's probably rather inadvertence than an expression of Germanocentrism, and after all, he's not a linguist.

And there he even suggests that the intruding Yamnaya migrants already spoke Proto-Germanic:

„The most plausible, and perhaps the only possible, context for this to have happened would be the introduction of Proto-Germanic by the intruding Yamnaya groups.“

But that's just naive: The idea that modern ethnic groupings were already embedded in the Yamnaya complex like embryos and that they migrated from there to their modern seats. This is a very naive idea. More realistic is another conception: First there was more or less uniformity in the PIE homeland, followed by quick expansions which brought similar dialects to many parts of Europe, and only then, through isolation by distance, the different language groups slowly crystallised.

Al Bundy said...

Old Irish has some archaic features and it's relatively far away from the steppe or whichever homeland you prefer.Mycenean as I understand is thought be very close to late PIE and Classical Greek didn't change that much from Mycenean in a thousand years.Fascinating how languages evolve.Old English was in a slice of Denmark and North Germany 1500 years ago and now it's modern ancestor is everywhere.Even the Kryptonian villains in Superman spoke English.e

Plains Wanderer said...

@ Simon_W

Of course Baltic languages weren't spoken in Switzerland, that would be silly. At that time the Corded Ware culture probably still spoke closely related dialects of PIE. Influence from different non-IE substratum languages would cause these PIE dialects to diverge into unique languages with different innovations and different conserved archaisms.

In central Europe, the Corded Ware culture integrated various Neolithic populations including Funnelbeaker. Their language(s) are an important substratum in the western Corded Ware dialects of PIE, resulting in linguistic changes and innovations that ultimately lead to Proto-Germanic in the first millennium BC. This agrees with Kristiansen's paper linking Corded Ware with Proto-Germanic.

The eastern Corded Ware groups, particularly those in the Baltic and western Russia, integrated populations belonging to the Comb Ceramic tradition. These groups were still mostly hunter-gatherers with low population density so their linguistic impact on the arriving Corded Ware groups was probably smaller in comparison. With less substratum influence, these Corded Ware dialects probably diverged less from the original PIE language compared to most other branches of IE, since most of their linguistic innovations would have been internal. One of these dialects eventually developed into Proto-Balto-Slavic, which preserved relatively more archaic features of PIE.

This is all consistent with PIE having a coalescence time of about 5300 BP, immediately prior to the spread and dispersal of PIE dialects by Corded Ware and related cultures.

Al Bundy said...

The Chang paper favored the steppe theory because the Neolithic timeframe was too early.

Olympus Mons said...

@ Alberto
Long conversation we are not going to have. - Just take this a note:

If Adna papers to come shortly do state that Iberian Bell beakers were indeed R1b-M269+ (and he knows!) do you have any doubt, any whatsoever, that this Heyd's slow dispersal will be use to "demonstrate" that the BB were indeed the result of "earlier" stock coming from the steppe in the previous millennia? - Do you really, really wanna bet?

This is how a spin is spun. either in politics or religion or whatever.
I want this people here to ascertain that if Iberia BB come out as R1b-M269 they will scrap the steppe bulshit.
Do you also wanna bet you all wont?

Simon_W said...

@ Plains Wanderer

Why are you telling this to me? I wasn't the one who suggested the Corded Ware was Baltic. Yeah I could have called it silly. And partly you just repeated what I already said.

Simon_W said...

@ Gioiello

Why the Alans? Why not something more likely? As you might know, there's evidence for considerable Armenia_EBA-like admixture in central and southern Italians. In Tuscans it seems to be about 18.1%:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OL55B8cbPoHiLJ-EHgKU9UUW9L8jQl2oSJt2UB3YoLQ/edit#gid=675804788

When and how this arrived still is a largely open question which has to be resolved with ancient DNA. But I suppose this admixture brought along most of the yDNA J2a we see in modern Italians. And as it's unlikely that the migrants had nothing else than J2a, it makes sense that some of them had Armenian/Anatolian variants of R1b. The Longobard admixture in Tuscany is probably low, and many of them will have had Germanic haplogroups.

Plains Wanderer said...

@ Simon_W

I agree with you that the Corded Ware period is far too early to talk about Baltic, Germanic, etc. as if they were already distinct groups at that time. Sorry for being repetitive, I just wanted to explain the reasoning in my reply.

I doubt Al Bundy was implying that Corded Ware spoke Baltic and that it hasn't changed in nearly 5,000 years. I was pointing out that what he said is perfectly reasonable without jumping to strange conclusions like Baltic languages spreading all the way to Switzerland. The idea that Baltic languages preserve relatively more archaisms from early Corded Ware than other IE branches isn't far fetched.

Alberto said...

@OM

You shouldn't worry about that. If early Iberian Bell Beakers (like from Portugal, near Lisbon, around 2700 BC) turn out to be R1b-L51 (by that time they should be L51+), and they have no steppe admixture, I'm sure that no one here will say that they came from the steppe. People will accept that R1b-L23+ expanded from Western Europe (as it was mainstream years ago) and there will be no problem. The people working on these things are mostly of Western European origin and predominantly R1b, so they'd be happy to find out that R1b is actually Western European.

The only problem is that the data we got in the last few years says that this is almost impossible, so people accept this reality until proven otherwise. But no R1b guy has any interest in having an origin in Eastern Europe, as far as I know.

Ric Hern said...

Proto-Italo-Celtic-Germanic in the West and Proto-Balto-Slavic in the East. The shared Archaisms between Tocharian,Celtic,Italic and Hittite makes me think that this is where we will find the closest thing to Proto-Indo-European. It all depends where and when Hittites and Tocharians originated. Early or Late ?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Simon_W,
"As for the asociation between Corded Ware and Proto-Germanic insinuated by Kristiansen, the most explicit formulation is perhaps this one:...."

Exactly. Loan words in German were borrowed when Steppe folk first arrived. Though Kristiansen must not understand that proto-German wasn't around back then.

batman said...

@ Rob

"But at a very basic level, R1a doesn't seem to be a feature of Germanic languages, but rather a substrate in some Germanic groups, and that being different subclades of R1a in different Germanic groups, such as L664 in some Scandinavians, Z284 in others, and 'Balto-Slavic" clades in continental Germans."

You start getting there.

In the geographical and demographical descriptions of from Tacitus and his contemporaries you'll find some intresting view-points on the demographic aka etnographic distributions of Northern Europe - and it's border(s) to "The East". as

Both Greek and Roman geographers seem to agree that "east" means the "eastern waters" creating the 'transport-zone' that dominated the trade of ancient Europe - beetween the Eastern Baltics and the Black Sea.

Checking "transport-zones" as defined by modern archeology - and dated by C-14 - we find the first amber-trade to have occured during the LP. To be picked up during Early Mesolithic, reaching Egypt and Sumer - as well as North Cape - no later than 6.000 BP. The well-described "amber-routes" do really speak volumes on that - making the Vistulan Lagoon and the "Suevonian Bay" outside of "Swino-juze" and Oder the major start of that export. One to the Black Sea, the other to the Venetian Bay, via Vindabona.

Tacitus considers the "Suevonians" to be of their own "stock" (stirpe) - although they belong to the "German Gens" (Gens = Genera/Seed) - also reflected in the term "aet-nos" - "of same stem" of "limb". They're bnoth farmers - and the Sueones are known for their horses. (The Germans for their bulls, calves and female beuties, tranzported in decoriated carriages to the annual festivals and rites of "the Germans").

Tacitus places the "Sueones" at the eastern side of the Germans, between Oder and Vistula. From Vistula eastwards (Samland) Tacitus and Ptolemy agrees that another "Gens" started, which 'family-name' where "Sarmat" and their area "Sarmatia". To which are counted "esti" and "fenni", besides "vene-dae" and "scyti". I think Ptolemy describes the area up to the White Sea quite well, which he described and named "Mare Scyti". Roman annals share that name, besides the alternate "Mare Coagulatum", "at The End of the Inhabitable World".

In the Norse maps - described in Kringla Heimsins ("Our World") by Dr. lic. Snorre Sturlusson - the northernmost waters of the Atlantic had permanent sea-ice, above the North Cape. It seems that the permanent sea-ice between Nova Zemlja, Svalbard and NE Greenland was still in existence no less than 2.000 years ago - if the melting-process known from the last 150 years is anything to by. Which means that the latin descriptions of a "coagulated ocean" - north of the Scytian Sea was pretty accurate. Which may be explained by the fact that the "Scytian Sea" with the "arctic treasures" (ivory, lampoil, ropes) were at the northern bend of the major trade-way of central Eurasia - from the Baltic via Onega to the trade-central at the end of Volga and Don. You may start looking for another "amber-road" in order to explain the I-E spread that occurs already during Late Mesolithic to expand into both Neolithic and BA art - and symbolisms - from Ireland in the west to China in the east. Comparing Irish NE/BA with Chineese NE/BA may even explain something about when and why there are comparable haplogroups in ancient y-dna from both 'cultures'.

http://www.jassa.org/?p=268
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html#huns

batman said...

Seemingly, the horse went with R1a and the bull with the R1b. They both seem to have produced two off-springs, aka "branches":

R1a reached Volga, Carelia, Estonia-Lithuania, mainland Scandinavia and the islands in the west, such as the Orkneys and Scottland as the first cattle-farmers some 7.000 years ago. Here the first ponnies were bred into existance, by selective breeding. Just as the steppe-horse were bred into being where the the river-valleys and the irigated lowland of the boreal woodlands borders the wide, arid steppes. On both sides of the Caspian Sea, apparently, hiking all the way to Tocharia and the Tarim bassin.

Seemingly, one of them - or a third branch - went south along the Oder and the CE woodlands. In Caesars time there were a population of "sueones" in the boreal (Biscayan) part of Spain.

A brother-line from R1b seem to have followed the very same pattern, but along the 'true' lowlands of Europe, where the climate is milder and the ragged bulls could feed himself on the open fields throughout the year. The western spread of Rb1 and Bulls were followed ny the pottery called EBK/TBK in Germany/Denmark/Sweden, SBK in Holland, BB in England and Spain - etc.

South of the French plains, where the rivers moves south to the Meds we find both cattle and horses pread along with the Caridal, Impressed and Painted ceramics. Which happen to concord with the ancient graves and graveyards showing y-dna G. Their first, mesolithic spread seem to have carried the goat- and the sheep-farming into the Mediterranen climate-zone. According to the frequent island-jumping this agriculture were obviously ship-borne, which explain the early, "proto-Minoan" period - when pottery, bulls and warm-bloded horses (Taipan) starts to appear - and the first (known) Pillars, Sanctuaries and Palaces were risen in and around Mt. Ida and Crete.

A second R1b-line seem to have followed the eastern trade-routes between the Baltic and the Black Sea - to populate the gordious lowlands of Eastern Europe with bullfarms. All the way down to Dacia, Tauria and Bulgard - also known as Garda-riki ('Gard(en) empire').

For some odd reason the descendants of R1b1b seem to have followed the Bulls, all the way to Majkop. Obviously via Dniester-Bug, where the oldest pot-making cattle-farmers are known. No wonder the river Bug is seen as a 'prime origin' (Bog = Allfather aka "God") in the East-European (vendic/slavonic) pantheon.

The further spread of the eastern R1b MAY be connected to Homers and Ptolemys "Tauri" and the "Thysa-getae", as well as the "Bul-gars" - once known to popualte the very same area as the so-called "Yamna-horizon". Moreover, exonyms like 'Tauri' and 'Thyssa-getae' may very well refer to parts of this agri-culture, the later reflecting a connection between bull-farmers and the old 'gutian', 'geatae' or 'gotonic' speakers.

batman said...

Some 7.200 years ago (larger) bulls reached from the grasslands of the lower Nile to the Etopian highlands. Today we may presume that a distinct line of R1b was on the same trail. Noteably without the company of the R1a-cousins with the cold-blod horses and mountain-cattle.

Around the Med it seems that the existing sheep- and goat-farmers continued to do the herding and farming, adapting the larger Bulls and warm-blooded ('arabian') horses. (At some point they seem to have given the Egyptian land over to a R1b-dynasty, according to some Geneta-reading of Tuth-Ank-Amon.)

Similar migrations of larger cattle reached Sumer and Indus, as well as China. North-East of Aral into Tocharia the Yak-oxes were prefered over horses. South-East of Aral the "Asvinas" appear again - with a 8-legged horse - along with the boreal Bull. As the Celtic and the Chinese bronze-age reach artistic perfection we see their craftsmen use the very same tridents, trigons, tripods and quatropods as basic elements of their respective cultures, traditions and 'values'. Moreover, the close ties between Celtic and Chinese mythology reflect a common, cultural origin.

As the genetic evidence of continental connections - between R1a-farmers in N Ireland and ancient R1a-farmers in NW China we may suspect that somewhere inbetween we should find the origin of a basic, Indo-European language - too? Mallroys conclusion regarding the old Tocharian as a I-E language seems to confirm that. Which may make the narrowing down of a common, lingusitic origin for the old, northern I-E languages possible. Then we should expect to find a common trait, in terms of age and periodization, along the southern areas of the I-E spread-sheet.

To create a network of long-distance travellers trading, to create steady transport-routes of vital goods, some common, linguistical connections is needed - all along the way. Which is why the royal designates of the Old Kingdoms - based on indignous y-dna-lines - would encourage, support and protect the major routes of contact between the Capitols of the various y-lines.

The inter-continental spread of an I-E norm is nothing but impressive in itself. Understanding that it became dominant ALL along the arctic world, NORTH of the mountain-ranges along the 40-45 paralell, seems to confirm that "Proto-IE" have a past up north, where it survived Younger Dryas along with the "I-E typology" found in petroglyphs, wood- a and ivory-carvings from LP Mezin to EME Shigir - from where it affected most if not all pot-makers known from the Eurasian Neolithic.

To me it seems clear that R1a and R1b were BOTH part of the northern dynasties who spread the "I-E culture". But they were NOT the only ones involved, just as little as they were the only 'Caucasian' of 'kind', 'stem' or 'stock'.

Due to a common, arctic ancestor it's now possible to connect the term "Caucasian" to the ancestors of R1, such as K2. Moreover we can rest assured that K2 is a result of an arcitc adventure that developed separately during the Paleolithic, via CF to the 'brotherlines' of G,H,I,J,K - and their consequentual branches and off-shoots.

Consequently we HAVE to check if the first spread of a "proto-IE toungue" was contemporary to the first spread of "proto-IE morphograms, ideograms and logo-grams" - that also survived LGM/YD up north (Goyet/Sungir/Malta->Mezin->Shigir). Then we may check for the oldest known ox-charts, (coppered) wagon-wheels and paved roads - along with advanced metalurgy and a phonetic alphabeth completed. They may both have a lot to do with the dynastical spread of y-dna I, up north, and the respective evolution of y-dna G, H and J, down south.

Besides that I like joking, too. As long as it's separated in both space and time from what's anything but a joke.

Al Bundy said...

I just read again an article by Antanas Klimas about the relationship between Baltic and Slavic.It's 50 years old and things have changed obviously since then but it's an interesting read.Usually Baltic and Slavic are grouped together as a branch under IE but some scholars like Klimas,who passed away 20 years ago,think the similarities exist because both branches preserve some archaic features from IE and not because there was Proto Balto Slavic which then split up.They also of course evolved in close contact with each other.He gets into the nitty gritty about grammar and phonology and so on.His angle is definitely that Baltic and Slavic are separate branches but whatever one thinks it's worth looking at.

Nirjhar007 said...

I think if you want to connect ethnic to archaeology , you will need materials , materials which goes parallel to the ethnic identity of a particular group.

Suggesting CWC spread P-Germ. is stupid . But if someone points me that ''look these are the materials which are typical Germanic type with typical motifs which can be considered as proto-'' etc , then its another issue worth debating .

Aram said...

Gioiello's R1b Z2110 is not typical for Armenians. It is typical for Europe. Most probably his R1b came to Italy from one of Balkanic Bronze Age cultures like Vucedol.
Messapians, Venetes etc.

Aram said...

Al Bundy

Hittites lack female gender. Do Baltes lack female gender?
Plurial suffix of Germanic is close to Hittite's one. Can we say the same about Baltes?

Al Bundy said...

I don't know much about Hittite I'll take your word for it.Yea Baltic has 3 genders.What are you trying to get at,similarities between Germanic and Hittite?

Rob said...

It means Hittite is older than Baltic because the third gender had not yet developed, or was "lost". Baltic just seems very conservative as far as north European IE lects go. But really, it holds no special place.

Gioiello said...

@ Simon_W
I joked a lot, when I wrote on Anthrogenica before my banishment, the endless and boring novels of a person nicknamed Alan, and here we have vespetilio! Of course, coming hg. R1 from the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor, they have somerthing to do with Northern Euriope, but that they wintered near the "mare coagulatum" we may have some doubt, in fact Villabruna was 14000 years ago in Italy.
I don't write novels (I wrote books of poetry in critics, but I don't mix these with my scientific analyses on genetics).
I am writing about these matter from more than ten years, and of course I wrote a lot about Armenians, long before Yamnaya were tested, but, for instance about R-L389+, the ancestor of all subclades, I noted that Armenia has only one haplotype (YCAII=23-23) whereas Italy has four (18-22, 18-23. 22-23. 23-23). Had I to think that R-L389+ came from Armenia to Italy or from Italy to Armenia?
That my R-L23-Z2110* could be of Alan origin (but I put in the basket already ten years ago also Germans, Jews, etc. beyond Etruscans, Romans etc.) is due to a genealogist of Neaples University (Tranchesi) who belongs to the same R-L23-(L277)-BY3176 of Mattoli/Modestini I manage etc, and he thinks that all these noble families has a Longobard origin but from "Alans". He is in my private mail list (with Francalacci, Tofanelli, Boattini, Low, Krahn, Beaugrand and other friends), and I joked with him by asking him why he is seeing"Alans" everyehere whereas when I was young I saw other ("pussy" above all). But, as we are also genealogists beyond "possible" geneticists (I reached my ancestor of 1300 Signorino del Badia and my friend Marco Grassi his Bernardo da Tivegna of the 1100), I have to take into account also their hypotheses. Of course I am not at all convinced that I came from Alans (so far the unique Y found in their aDNA is G2a), neither that only R-L51 expanded from Western Europe, but also R-L23, and only a few subcldes of it were in Samara and had Eastern descendants. The fact that so far my R-L23-Z2110,with 90 (and more) private SNPs from Full Genome, finds linked people in a French Basque, an Englishman, but lately also an Arab (but perhaps an Anatolian) and lastly also an Armenian seems to get a SNP incommon with me (FGC24408), so I wrote to Yfull to take it into account because they don't recognize it but it is good just from my .BAM file. And I don't write "novels".
p.s. J2 (and J1) are older in Italy than in the Caucasus, and I am waiting tha they are found in the aDNA when all these Harvardians and Stanfordians (beyond Salt &Pepper) will decide to test in Italy beyond the 5 samples tested so far.

Rob said...

@ Al

Any language (perhaps apart from Anatolian) in early to mid M2 would still have been ratjer similar to original PIE in morpho-syntax.

EastPole said...

@Al Bundy
“Usually Baltic and Slavic are grouped together as a branch under IE but some scholars like Klimas,who passed away 20 years ago,think the similarities exist because both branches preserve some archaic features from IE and not because there was Proto Balto Slavic which then split up. They also of course evolved in close contact with each other. ….His angle is definitely that Baltic and Slavic are separate branches but whatever one thinks it's worth looking at.”

As per Mittnik et al. 2017 and Jones et al. 2017 some early Balto-Slavic CWC R1a-Z614 around Baltic were directly from the steppe without Anatolian farmer admixture. So early CWC Balto-Slavic language was the language from the steppe without Neolithic farmer languages influence. No doubt it was very archaic, and probably close to PIE.
Some CWC Balto-Slavs in the Vistula region mixed with Funnelbeaker farmers, settled down and started farming. From them proto-Slavs developed.
Around SE Baltic that process was much slower and early CWC Balto-Slavs there were also more mixing with HG. There proto-Balts developed.
After that proto-Slavs and proto-Balts were in contact and mixed.
This explains differences and similarities in genetics and languages.

Aram said...

Al Bundy

This is the list of languages by grammatical genders. Note that Uralic, Turkic and Mongolian languages that we know for sure originated in North Eurasia DON'T have grammatical genders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_type_of_grammatical_genders#No_grammatical_gender

So my question is. What is more probable that the most archaic PIE 6500 years ago had 3 grammatical genders or didn't have? Especially we have the case of Hittite.

My point is that PIE evolved a lot after the first split of Anatolians at 4000 BC. And we can't say that Baltic is the ONLY best preserver of archaisms.

p.s. Btw You can note that the female gender is very important feature of many Afro Asiatic languages.

Aram said...

Research indicates that the earliest stages of Proto-Indo-European had two genders (animate and inanimate), as did Hittite, the earliest attested Indo-European language. According to the theory, the animate gender, which (unlike the inanimate) had an independent accusative form, later split into masculine and feminine, thus originating the three-way classification into masculine, feminine and neuter.[42][43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
My "theory" as very little impact by this papers - My theory is as simple as :
*6000BC in South Caucasus as Shulaveri (r1b+M269);
*4900Bc the year of the great arrival of the others (still trying to figure how and really from where) saw the dispersal of the R1b+M269+L23 into north caucasus and back to anatolia where they had come mixed with Fikirtepe and the ones I care, to south.
*4800BC in Tell Tsaf, Israel, for a couple centuries. They were moving to join part of the earlier stock that moved to Fayum(v88?)
*4800BC - 4000BC as Merimde, El-omari and in part Maadi in Lower nile and I am not sure if L51 is not actually there!.
*3700-3300BC arriving to south Iberia, mixed with other north Africa stock fleeing the birth of the Sahara desert.
*3000BC South and central Portugal (and other parts), and becoming Bell beakers.

Simple. Nothing in the articles have any impact on my thesis.
What I agree is with Kristiansen. - For christ sake, follow how people bury their dead and build their houses because those are the things that HUMANS do not change easily!

Follow the guys making Round huts interconnect around a central yard and bent wall surranounding it! Simple!
Or as K. Kh. Kushnareva in his book that sums it up real good:

“Like in so many places around the Neolithic prior to the appearance of the Shulaveri Shomu, people seemed to live in small communal of agriculturalist and when one looks at the architecture for houses it really comprised of a largish tholoi like house where everybody lived, with a centered fired in the middle where everybody gather around and it really was the family or the fire people as we can learn from the Chokh sites. Not more than 30 people living together.
Not the Shulaveri, they were different. Contrary to what one would finds earlier, the overall structure formed an interconnected complex, with housing for livestock, storage pits, clay fireplaces inside the house and outdoor ovens. Those small single houses interconnect to form a larges structure and living complex, sometimes joined by a curved wall. At a point those settlements formed a Hierarchy of settlements, most with around 400 people and it seemed to have some sort of Hierarchy.”

Rob said...

@ OM
As I told you the first time you blessed us with your abrasive presence, I want yours or any alternative theory to be true, as it'll open up a Pandora's box of new research
But yours won't be. If your people spent 1800 years in the levant and North Africa, then the BB folk should come out looking like Natifians and Neolithic levantines. They aren't !
You can't just ignore that.

Al Bundy said...

@Rob eastpole Aram thanks

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob.
You kidding me right?
Shit, f**k... try again because this disqualify more than anything else. :) People have spent milenia in one place and never got really that much admix from the neighboros 100 miles way. neolithic Anatolian and western Iran living side by side had a Fst as big as a German and a Japanese today!


*"My people" spent 300 years in the Levant and then the architecture got back to what it was in tell Tsaf. - Silo culture was gone.
*"My People" spent 800 years in Delta Nile and then Maadi became badarian and those were a very different stock.

With the Turmoil of the birth of Sahara desert and upper Egypt moving north...Some flee back to Iberia. Both Iberias - Well just because lots of writings have been destroyed it does not mean there was not extensive literature at some point in time explaining why the ancient Greeks called Iberians to current Pt and SP populations and also to tribes in south Caucasus.


Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
Thank you for calling them "my people". :) really. It just fills me with joy.

You know I am Portuguese and have absolute no connections to south Caucasus, right?

Karl_K said...

@OM

Hold on. Are you actually suggesting that Portugal has no connection to the South Caucasus?

Seriously?

And... BTW...

They are ALL 'My People'.

Ric Hern said...

Some Early Hittite samples results would be nice...

Ric Hern said...

If Hittite samples do not contain R1a, what will this mean for peoples who claim that R1a were the sole spreaders of Indo-European ?

Olympus Mons said...

@ric
Very good question.

Because hititte will be r1b and J2, Imo.

Rob said...

@ OM
Your people as in your thesis people :)

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
I know... but I liked the sound of it.

Ric Hern said...

Yamnaya looks more like a dispersal phase rather than a formation phase of Proto-Indo-European. When looking at it in that way I can see some peoples point but when trying to connect it to the origin of Indo-European then it becomes problematic. I can see that Yamnaya may have had some kind of levelling out effect on already close related dialects...

batman said...

Ninjar,

"I think if you want to connect ethnic to archaeology , you will need materials , materials which goes parallel to the ethnic identity of a particular group."

A number of basic ideograms ("heraldic symbols/symbol-elements/archetypes") is found in a wide variety of early, Eurasian pottery - from the 'pre-neolithic' pottery of Volga-Ural to the CWC of eastern Europe and the BB of Spain.

http://donsmaps.com/wolfcamp.html
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/is-this-the-worlds-oldest-secret-code/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

Today we're able to trace these basic ideograms back to the Eurasian Paleolithic, as shown by the various figures and decorations found on the 30.000 year old ceramics of Dolni Vestonice to the ivory-carvings from Mestize, made some 15.000 years ago - during the temperate period between LGM and YD - at the crossroad between the Baltics and the Black Sea. The very same "codex" did obviously survive - to be used as a 4 meters tall statue was carved in lark-wood, in the Uralain Shigir - just about one millenia after the YD mass-extinction.

Thus we may follow these archetypes throughout the Holecene - as Northern Eurasia was re-populated. Throughout the Neolitics we can even see how the better areas develop both agriculture and commerical centras, making central crossroads into economical and cultural 'metro-poles'. Today we may even add that these 'metropoles' were connected through dynastic lines - as functions of a 'capi-tol' would require some form of "organizing principle" at work. From the very start - to create stable and successive cutlures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Varangian_routes.png

On these terms we may follow the "Caucasian" characteristics, as described by classic Etnology as well as Cultural History. Today we may even connect "caucasian" to a set of y-dna, known as F->GHIJK, due to a common cultural ancestry - involving flint-stone, amber, walrus ivory, lamp-oil and snowshoes...

https://books.google.ca/books?id=0H0EpSm8aioC&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false

It' obvious that there was a minimum of ONE refugia surviving the end of ice-time, including the mass-extionction of YD (13.000-12.000 BP), north of the 40th paralell. As the YD deep-freeze passed the re-population of the northern Europe happens immediately, simultanious to Southern Europe. When the mesolithic pioneers padled along the coasts of Northern Norway their maritime cousins heading south found both Gibraltar and the Eastern Meds, no later than 11.500 yrs ago.

The creators of Gobekli Tepe seems to be a part of this arctic culture - as the known paleolithic symbols and 'heraldry' is used to decorate their megalithic pillars.

This do suggest - once again - that the schools of linguists describing a "Paleolithic Continuation" for both I-E and Uralian language are more close to truth than the older, Nostratic models.

batman said...

Moreover, as some 40% of the I-E and Uralian word-stems have common roots there is a strong indicative of IE and Uralian having an common, Paleolithic Origin. The geographical union between the Uralian languages and y-dna N clearly indicates that the linguistical branching followed a dynastical distribution of ancient y-dna.

Looking at neolithic ceramics and the BA art from the Uralian area it seems clear that they use the very same, paleolithic ideograms, symbolism and geometry as is found in the I-E areas. The expansion of these 'archetypes' may actually be connected to the 'paleolithic' y-dna that diversed and spread already from the break of the Mesolithic. Later to be completed by the R1a/b as the neolithic cultures spread cattlefarms and diaries.

We may explain the I-E influx in India as the result of an "arian influence" - and read 'arian' as 'arctic'. As well as 'noble', 'wise' or 'learned' - as a reflection of HOW an 'invasion' of some Caucasian families - with time - could produce "an I-E influence" in major parts of the old, Indian continent.

From the GHIJK-group Y-dna H seem to have the older root, based in dravidian India - while y-dna J dominated the north. The later influx of bulls and R1a/b can hardly explain the oldest trade-routes across Eurasia AND the I-E basics of Sanskrit, Persian and Hindi. While the early spread of walrus ivory and hg J - from mesolithic Karelia and Iran - surely can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huto_and_Kamarband_Caves

batman said...

Aram,

North-East German (Gothic/Swedish/Danish) have two genders. North-West (Norwegian/Icelandic) have three, as do southern ('proper') Germans.

The two gender-format is obviously the oldest.

epoch2013 said...

@batman

"40% of the I-E and Uralian word-stems have common roots"

Can you provide academic documentation for that claim? I'm highly interested.

Al Bundy said...

@Ric Well it does look like the steppe groups at the very least spread a subset of IE languages into Europe.Whether PIE actually came from the steppe we don't know yet and how IE got to Greece and Anatolia is still not clear.The recent papers have been all about the spread of IE but to find out where it actually originated we need more pre Yamnaya data and all that stuff is coming.I think the steppe theory is still the best bet we'll see.

Ric Hern said...

@Al Yes I agree about the Steppe. The only things that must not be forgotten when talking about Proto-Indo-European are Hittite and Tocharian otherwise a skew picture will be drawn.

Fanty said...

"But if someone points me that ''look these are the materials which are typical Germanic type with typical motifs which can be considered as proto-'' etc , then its another issue worth debating ."

From what I have read, the earliest materials, that can be considered "proto" Germanic or at least definately culturaly anchestral to the later "Germanic" culture, is "Nordic Bronce Age".

Through I recall an article that claimed, Germanic culture and language have most likely 2 different sources. The source for the culture may be Scandinavia (with "NOrdic Bronce age" beeng the major anchestor). The source for the language could indeed lay in actual (northern) Germany.

Ric Hern said...

I think the problem with tracing Indo-Europeans is similar as how Hittites formed. As far as I know it is difficult to trace Proto-Hittites because of their thorough adoption of the Hattic Culture. Something similar could have happened in Central Europe with Early Indo-Europeans melting into different cultures and leaving little to track continuity from the old to the new.

batman said...

Epoch2013,

The age of the I-E and the Uralian seem to be similar - both "post-paleolithic". Both based in the same 'family' out of the five 'families' used by modern linguistics, running computer-models of the Eurasian languages.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8471.full.pdf

As this repport re-actualized the question of the age and origin of both I-E and Uralian, the discussion ended up with the Paleolithic/Mesolithic transition, when the re-population of northern Eurasia started.

The relationship between the ancient, northern branch of I-E ("proto-Germanic" or "Gottonic") and the basic ("proto") Uralian speakers would nessecarily become close in terms of 'cultures' during the early Mesolithic of northern Europe. These factors all points to a common root of "proto-Germanic" and "proto-Uralic".

Add to that that the compilition of the (known) languages termed as "Germanic" is compared to the various dialects of "Uralic" we a common 'sound-system' - based on 9 clear sounds and some 20 chords.

Moreover we find a clear substrate of common word-stems, with various soundvalues ('chords') but identical semantic content. In one of these discussions I heard a swedish-speaking Finnish linguist, Erik A. Snellmann, agree to the general assesment of a common origin, refering an assesment of "up to 40%" of the wordstems to be "of common origin".

Using a common word-book between Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian I found ca. 1 of 5 Finnish glosses in one of the Scandinavian. A well-used example is the Uralic "Koning" and "Koningatar" found in the German languages as "König" and "Königin".

Noteable is that the Scandinavian Goths (still) use "Konung" and "Drottning", just as the English (still) use "King" and "Queen". Proving that the Uralian influence in m-o-d-e-r-n German is higher than in todays Scandianvian...

batman said...

The origin, history and mixing between the Uralian and NW I-E is still a matter of more and better research. Today we see that even the old Frisian and the Ostro-Gothic languages were combines of "Proto-Germanic"/"Gottonic"/'Gothic' and 'Uralic' - as in Finnish and Estonian, in Norse litterature named "Vendic". Thus we have to presume that old European people described as Wendi/Venden/Venedae/Vaner/Vende/Venedi/Veneti and Vene-je by their western neighbours - and Ouane/Houne/Hune/Hunen by their southern - were of the same, uralian language-family, originally.

Seemingly, besides sharing a substrate with the Gottonic-Germanic languages there should be a number of cognates from old Fenno-Ugric still left in todays Russia, where the Uralian was the general languages before the Christianization and the introduction of the Slavonic language north of Kiev.

The old Bulgarian Empire seems to have been the hub of a reconstruction of the network that were to trade across the Black Sea after the downfall of the Persian Empire. Trading between Uralian and Gottonic speakers, as well as Persians in the east and Greek down south, the Bulgar Empire out of Ouna-gar/Vana-gard, Asov and Kiev - seemed to have made a synthesis based on some common denominator - creating "Proto-Slavic". As the Bulgarian Empire merged with the Byzantian a normative of the Slavonic languages become the official langugae of the old, agricultural Bulgarians as well as all their neighbours - wether descendants of Goths, Vends, Persians and Greeks.

The spread of the slavonic languages were obviously a cultural change (consent) achieved by politics, rather than a etnical change, achieved by migrations, warfare and re-placement. Which is why the large, agricultural populations of Eastern Europe all changes from a more original I-E to the new, adapted one - created as a new, common "lingua Franca" for the Black Sea Trade Union of the 5th century AD.

The Vendic traders of the Vistulan lagoon would still speak "vendic", as in 'Uralic'. At the time of Tacitus the coastals east/north-east of Vistula were "esti". They still talk plain Uralic.

According to the Norse sources the mounth of Vistula were a major area of, for and by the Vends. Moreover they populated "Vend-land", described as the Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Belorus.

batman said...

Jordanes (550 AD) describes the Veneti as "a populous nation", whose dwellings begin at the sources of the Vistula and occupy "a great expanse of land."


He describes them as the ancestors also of the Sclavenes (a people who appeared on the Byzantine frontier in the early 6th century and who are believed to have been the early Southern Slavs) and of the Antes. Specifically, he states that the Slavs and the Antes used to be called the Veneti but are now "chiefly" (though, by implication, not exclusively) called Slavs and Antes.

He places the Slavs north of a line from the Dniestr to Lake Musianus the location of which is unclear but which has been variously identified with Lake Constance, the Tisa-Danube marshes or the Danube delta. He places the Antes to the east of the Slavs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti

ak2014b said...

I'm late in adding my impressions of the papers. Several things stuck out as odd in the Kristiansen paper, besides the obvious one of Corded Ware being cast as exclusively proto-Germanic.

One of the things I couldn't make sense of in the Kristiansen paper was

"We can also observe a selection for lactose tolerance and for height (Mathieson et al. 2015)."

It comes in a paragraph discussing "the Yamnaya cultures of the Pontic and Caspian steppe" and their subsequent migration to eastern Central Europe and Northern Europe. The reference to the Mathieson paper is strange, in that Mathieson et al 2015 could not find any lactase persistence in their Yamna aDNA samples or in the steppe migrants to Central Europe until after the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. The mutation then finally pops up in a Bell Beaker sample, rather than the Corded Ware Culture. Moreover, since the mutation was found in just a single Bell Beaker sample, it was not considered indicative of proper selection acting on the mutation in the region at that time. Mathieson et al 2015 therefore placed the actual increase in the lactase persistence mutation to have occurred since 4kya, which is after the CWC,

"The strongest signal of selection is at the SNP (rs4988235) responsible for lactase persistence in Europe14. Our data (Fig. 3) strengthens previous reports that an appreciable frequency of lactase persistence in Europe only dates to the last four thousand years3,5,15. The allele’s earliest appearance in our data is in a central European Bell Beaker sample (individual I0112) that lived between approximately 2300 and 2200 BCE."

Heyd confirms my understanding of this when he writes in "Kossina's smile" that

"Yamnaya steppe peoples were fair-skinned but had dark eye colours (also confimed in Allentoft et al. 2015); blue eyes were more common in the CWC, but, contrary to predictions, the lactase persistence mutation was not yet present."

So I don't get why the current Kristiansen paper chose to refer to Mathieson et al 2015 as showing that lactose tolerance was selected for in this far earlier period, when Mathieson and his colleagues rather said they could not find any evidence for it.

ak2014b said...

Another disappointment with the Kristiansen paper is a sudden lack of detail to illustrate the key point that the CW migrants who'd arrived from Yamna were specifically warlike. The discussion for this mentioned war-bands or raiding, although this was itself inferred based on references to other IE cultures, rather than being fleshed out in archaeological detail. unfortunate part was that the instances where the paper gives archaeological examples of warlike behaviour tended to be cases where the CW migrants were at the receiving end of violent behaviour from earlier Europeans. Like the example of some CW males being massacred in Eulau with arrows made by Schönfelders. The contrast against Kristiansen not providing similar archaeological examples of CW people's own warlike behaviour kind of kept them from sufficiently living up to the "Battle Axe" nomenclature of CW. I had been anticipating archaeological examples of CW putting their battle axes to actual use, not just being told they got buried with them ("deposit of A-type battle-axes in male burials"), or just getting murdered by locals for being migrants daring to intermarry with the local women.

Heyd mentioned a couple of archaeological finds that were new to me, but he didn't go as deeply into this as I wanted either and instead used them in his arguments. I guess we'll get a proper paper detailing these finds. All in all, I think Davidski is right that the papers sound more like opinion pieces, rather than turning out to be as insightful as I'd been expecting. At least there's still the major Bell Beaker paper to look forward to.

EastPole said...

‘Kristiansen is now looking into the genetic history of Mediterranean peoples; he's also working in collaboration with several genetics research groups to find out more about the Bell Beaker culture, which was a contemporary of the Corded Ware people from Western Europe.
"In two or three months, you will get the answer to that one," Kristiansen said’.

http://www.livescience.com/58555-corded-ware-culture-arose-from-intermarriages.html

So Bell Beaker paper will be in two or three months.